1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JANE DOE, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00217-JLS-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER:
14 v. (1) DENYING IN PART JOINT 15 WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY INC., et al., DEADLINES, and 16
Defendants. 17 (2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 18
19 [ECF No. 185] 20 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines. 21 ECF No. 185. 22 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 23 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 24 the judge’s consent”); see also ECF No. 177 at 6 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he 25 dates [] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 26 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 27 request”). Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, 28 e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. 1 Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). 2 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural 3 and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 4 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 5 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 6 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.... 7 If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 8 Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original 9 deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 10 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). 11 Here, the parties seek a six-month continuance of all scheduling order deadlines, 12 beginning with the fact discovery cutoff, which is presently set for December 2, 2025. ECF 13 No. 185. The parties represent to the Court that Plaintiff was arrested on February 12, 2025, 14 and was incarcerated until August 25, 2025. ECF No. 185 at 5. Since “communication 15 between Plaintiff and her counsel was extremely limited” during her incarceration, 16 “Plaintiff was effectively unable to participate in discovery or supply information 17 necessary to respond to written discovery from Defendants.” Id. Thus, “discovery in this 18 matter has not progressed as expected pursuant to the Scheduling Order.” Id. 19 The parties, therefore, request the six-month extension to “allow the parties 20 sufficient time for discovery and other pre-trial preparation,” but do not expand further. Id. 21 For example, the parties do not explain what specific discovery has been completed and 22 what specific discovery is outstanding. The parties acknowledge that Plaintiff was released 23 from jail on August 25, 2025, but do not assert that any discovery has been completed in 24 the month and a half that has lapsed since her release. The parties also do not explain why 25 the three months of discovery after her release—as Plaintiff was released on 26 August 25, 2025, and fact discovery does not close until December 2, 2025—is 27 insufficient. The Court also notes that the parties’ Joint Case Management Conference 28 Statement was filed on May 19, 2025,—while Plaintiff was incarcerated—yet makes no 1 mention of her incarceration, let alone suggests it as a barrier to discovery. ECF No. 175. 2 In fact, the parties represented in their Joint Statement that “Plaintiff has responded to 3 discovery from Defendant ESA.” Id. at 13. The Court held a Case Management Conference 4 on May 28, 2025,—while Plaintiff was incarcerated—and issued a Scheduling Order that 5 contemplated that fact, as counsel had subsequently informed the Court. ECF Nos. 176, 6 177. The Court also notes that the parties failed to provide a sufficient declaration from 7 counsel, as required by the Court’s Chambers Rules. Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that the joint 8 motion for continuance include a “declaration from counsel seeking the continuance that 9 describes the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and the specific reasons 10 why the deadlines cannot be met”) (emphasis added). Instead, counsel merely restates the 11 dates that Plaintiff was incarcerated and copies the identical sentences from the motion that 12 communications were limited and discovery had not progressed as expected. ECF 13 No. 185-1. Aside from being required, a sufficiently specific declaration would have been 14 helpful to the Court in resolving the many omissions noted above. 15 Upon due consideration, the Court does not find that the parties have shown 16 diligence. There is nothing before the Court to show that the parties have “act[ed] diligently 17 to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2. 18 Therefore, the Court does not find good cause for a continuance and DENIES the parties’ 19 joint motion. ECF No. 185. 20 To further settlement discussions, however, the Court will slightly modify the case 21 schedule, including the upcoming Mandatory Settlement Conference presently set for 22 November 5, 2025. The Court reiterates to the parties that they must act diligently to 23 meet the deadlines set forth by the Court. The Court issues the following First Amended 24 Scheduling Order: 25 1. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) originally set for 26 November 5, 2025, is RESET for January 16, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate 27 Judge Allison H. Goddard via videoconference. The parties should expect that the MSC 28 will last all day. 1 a. The Court requires the personal attendance of all named parties, party 2 representatives with full1 settlement authority, including claims adjusters 3 for insured defendants, and the primary attorney(s) responsible for the 4 litigation at the conference. Since Plaintiff Jane Doe’s attendance is 5 mandatory, to protect her confidentiality, she is permitted to attend the 6 videoconference with her camera turned off and her display name changed. 7 b. Plaintiff must serve on Defendants a written settlement proposal, which 8 must include a specific demand amount, no later than December 18, 2025. 9 The defendants must respond to the plaintiff in writing with a specific 10 offer amount prior to the Meet and Confer discussion. The parties should 11 not file or otherwise copy the Court on these exchanges. Rather, the parties 12 must include their written settlement proposals in their respective 13 Settlement Conference Statements to the Court. 14 c. Counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person, via 15 videoconference, or by phone no later than January 5, 2026. 16 d. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference Statement, which will 17 be served on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later than 18 January 8, 2026. The Statement must be lodged in .pdf format via email 19 to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). The substance of the 20
21 1 The Court reminds the parties that parties and party representatives with full and complete 22 authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present at the MSC. Full authority to 23 settle means that a person must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., 24 Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JANE DOE, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00217-JLS-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER:
14 v. (1) DENYING IN PART JOINT 15 WYNDHAM HOTELS & RESORTS, MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY INC., et al., DEADLINES, and 16
Defendants. 17 (2) ISSUING FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 18
19 [ECF No. 185] 20 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines. 21 ECF No. 185. 22 Parties seeking to continue deadlines in the scheduling order must demonstrate good 23 cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with 24 the judge’s consent”); see also ECF No. 177 at 6 (Scheduling Order, stating that “[t]he 25 dates [] set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause shown”); Chmb.R. at 2 26 (stating that any request for continuance requires “[a] showing of good cause for the 27 request”). Courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is good cause. See, 28 e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992); Liguori v. 1 Hansen, No. 2:11cv492-GMN-CWH, 2012 WL 760747, at *12 (D. Nev. Mar. 6, 2012). 2 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural 3 and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 4 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to amend the 5 scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 6 (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.... 7 If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). 8 Therefore, “a party demonstrates good cause by acting diligently to meet the original 9 deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 10 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2018). 11 Here, the parties seek a six-month continuance of all scheduling order deadlines, 12 beginning with the fact discovery cutoff, which is presently set for December 2, 2025. ECF 13 No. 185. The parties represent to the Court that Plaintiff was arrested on February 12, 2025, 14 and was incarcerated until August 25, 2025. ECF No. 185 at 5. Since “communication 15 between Plaintiff and her counsel was extremely limited” during her incarceration, 16 “Plaintiff was effectively unable to participate in discovery or supply information 17 necessary to respond to written discovery from Defendants.” Id. Thus, “discovery in this 18 matter has not progressed as expected pursuant to the Scheduling Order.” Id. 19 The parties, therefore, request the six-month extension to “allow the parties 20 sufficient time for discovery and other pre-trial preparation,” but do not expand further. Id. 21 For example, the parties do not explain what specific discovery has been completed and 22 what specific discovery is outstanding. The parties acknowledge that Plaintiff was released 23 from jail on August 25, 2025, but do not assert that any discovery has been completed in 24 the month and a half that has lapsed since her release. The parties also do not explain why 25 the three months of discovery after her release—as Plaintiff was released on 26 August 25, 2025, and fact discovery does not close until December 2, 2025—is 27 insufficient. The Court also notes that the parties’ Joint Case Management Conference 28 Statement was filed on May 19, 2025,—while Plaintiff was incarcerated—yet makes no 1 mention of her incarceration, let alone suggests it as a barrier to discovery. ECF No. 175. 2 In fact, the parties represented in their Joint Statement that “Plaintiff has responded to 3 discovery from Defendant ESA.” Id. at 13. The Court held a Case Management Conference 4 on May 28, 2025,—while Plaintiff was incarcerated—and issued a Scheduling Order that 5 contemplated that fact, as counsel had subsequently informed the Court. ECF Nos. 176, 6 177. The Court also notes that the parties failed to provide a sufficient declaration from 7 counsel, as required by the Court’s Chambers Rules. Chmb.R. at 2 (requiring that the joint 8 motion for continuance include a “declaration from counsel seeking the continuance that 9 describes the steps taken to comply with the existing deadlines, and the specific reasons 10 why the deadlines cannot be met”) (emphasis added). Instead, counsel merely restates the 11 dates that Plaintiff was incarcerated and copies the identical sentences from the motion that 12 communications were limited and discovery had not progressed as expected. ECF 13 No. 185-1. Aside from being required, a sufficiently specific declaration would have been 14 helpful to the Court in resolving the many omissions noted above. 15 Upon due consideration, the Court does not find that the parties have shown 16 diligence. There is nothing before the Court to show that the parties have “act[ed] diligently 17 to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2. 18 Therefore, the Court does not find good cause for a continuance and DENIES the parties’ 19 joint motion. ECF No. 185. 20 To further settlement discussions, however, the Court will slightly modify the case 21 schedule, including the upcoming Mandatory Settlement Conference presently set for 22 November 5, 2025. The Court reiterates to the parties that they must act diligently to 23 meet the deadlines set forth by the Court. The Court issues the following First Amended 24 Scheduling Order: 25 1. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) originally set for 26 November 5, 2025, is RESET for January 16, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate 27 Judge Allison H. Goddard via videoconference. The parties should expect that the MSC 28 will last all day. 1 a. The Court requires the personal attendance of all named parties, party 2 representatives with full1 settlement authority, including claims adjusters 3 for insured defendants, and the primary attorney(s) responsible for the 4 litigation at the conference. Since Plaintiff Jane Doe’s attendance is 5 mandatory, to protect her confidentiality, she is permitted to attend the 6 videoconference with her camera turned off and her display name changed. 7 b. Plaintiff must serve on Defendants a written settlement proposal, which 8 must include a specific demand amount, no later than December 18, 2025. 9 The defendants must respond to the plaintiff in writing with a specific 10 offer amount prior to the Meet and Confer discussion. The parties should 11 not file or otherwise copy the Court on these exchanges. Rather, the parties 12 must include their written settlement proposals in their respective 13 Settlement Conference Statements to the Court. 14 c. Counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person, via 15 videoconference, or by phone no later than January 5, 2026. 16 d. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference Statement, which will 17 be served on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later than 18 January 8, 2026. The Statement must be lodged in .pdf format via email 19 to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). The substance of the 20
21 1 The Court reminds the parties that parties and party representatives with full and complete 22 authority to enter into a binding settlement must be present at the MSC. Full authority to 23 settle means that a person must be authorized to fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties. Heileman Brewing Co., 24 Inc. v. Joseph Oat Corp., 871 F.2d 648, 653 (7th Cir. 1989). The person needs to have 25 “unfettered discretion and authority” to change the settlement position of a party. Pitman v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., 216 F.R.D. 481, 485–86 (D. Ariz. 2003). Limited or sum certain 26 authority is not adequate. Nick v. Morgan’s Foods, Inc., 270 F.3d 590, 595–97 (8th Cir. 27 2001). A person who needs to call another person who is not present at the MSC before agreeing to any settlement does not have full authority. 28 1 Settlement Conference Statement must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s 2 Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules (located on the court website at 3 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Manda 4 tory%20Settlement%20Conference%20Rules.pdf). 5 e. Each party may also prepare an optional Confidential Settlement Letter 6 for the Court’s review only, to be lodged with the Court no later than 7 January 8, 2026. The Letter must be lodged in .pdf format via email to 8 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Should a party choose to 9 prepare a Letter, the substance of the Settlement Conference Letter must 10 comply fully with Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference 11 Rules. 12 f. No later than January 8, 2026, each party must submit to the Court via 13 email (not filed) (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) the names, titles, 14 and email addresses of all attendees, as well as a cell phone number for 15 each party’s preferred point of contact. Court staff will then send out the 16 Zoom invitation to all attendees. 17 g. All participants shall display the same level of professionalism during the 18 Settlement Conference and be prepared to devote their full attention to the 19 Settlement Conference as if they were attending in person, i.e., cannot be 20 driving or in a car while speaking to the Court. Because Zoom may quickly 21 deplete the battery of a participant’s device, each participant should ensure 22 that their device is plugged in or that a charging cable is readily available 23 during the video conference. 24 h. Counsel are advised that although the Settlement Conference will take 25 place on Zoom, all participants shall appear and conduct themselves as if 26 it is proceeding in a courtroom, i.e., all participants must dress in 27 appropriate courtroom attire. 28 / / 1 i. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers 2 Rules and Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules of Magistrate 3 Judge Allison H. Goddard. 4 2. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by February 2, 2026. 5 “Completed” means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 6 Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of 7 time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking 8 into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of 9 Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with 10 regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). A failure to 11 comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an 12 order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be 13 recognized by the court. The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all 14 disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer process. If the parties 15 reach an impasse on any discovery issue, the movant must e-mail chambers at 16 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov no later than 45 days after the date of service of the 17 written discovery response that is in dispute, seeking a telephonic conference with the 18 Court to discuss the discovery dispute. The email must include: (1) at least three proposed 19 times mutually agreed upon by the parties for the telephonic conference; (2) a neutral 20 statement of the dispute; and (3) one sentence describing (not arguing) each party’s 21 position. The movant must copy opposing counsel on the email. No discovery motion may 22 be filed until the Court has conducted its pre-motion telephonic conference, unless the 23 movant has obtained leave of Court. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply 24 with the Chambers Rules of Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard. 25 3. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by 26 March 2, 2026. The parties must identify any person who may be used at trial to present 27 evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not 28 limited to retained experts. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by 1 March 16, 2026. The written designations shall include the name, address and telephone 2 number of the expert and a reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected to 3 provide. The list shall also include the normal rates the expert charges for deposition and 4 trial testimony. 5 4. By April 15, 2026, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in 6 Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure 7 requirement applies to all persons retained or specially employed to provide expert 8 testimony, or whose duties as an employee of the party regularly involve the giving of 9 expert testimony. Except as provided in the paragraph below, any party that fails to 10 make these disclosures shall not, absent substantial justification, be permitted to use 11 evidence or testimony not disclosed at any hearing or at the time of trial. In addition, 12 the Court may impose sanctions as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). 13 5. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal 14 evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by April 29, 2026. 15 6. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by May 29, 2026. The 16 parties shall comply with the same procedures set forth in the paragraph governing fact 17 discovery. 18 7. Failure to comply with this section or any other discovery order of the court 19 may result in the sanctions provided for in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including a prohibition on 20 the introduction of experts or other designated matters in evidence. 21 8. All other pretrial motions must be filed by July 7, 2026. Counsel for the 22 moving party must obtain a motion hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will 23 hear the motion. The period of time between the date you request a motion date and the 24 hearing date may vary from one district judge to another. Please plan accordingly. Failure 25 to make a timely request for a motion date may result in the motion not being heard. 26 Motions in limine are to be filed as directed in the Local Rules, or as otherwise set by the 27 district judge. 28 / / 1 9. An additional Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) will be held on 2 October 9, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard via 3 videoconference. The parties should expect that the MSC will last all day. This MSC will 4 replace the original additional MSC set for July 29, 2026. 5 a. The Court requires the personal attendance of all named parties, party 6 representatives with full2 settlement authority, including claims adjusters 7 for insured defendants, and the primary attorney(s) responsible for the 8 litigation at the conference. Since Plaintiff Jane Doe’s attendance is 9 mandatory, to protect her confidentiality, she is permitted to attend the 10 videoconference with her camera turned off and her display name changed. 11 b. Plaintiff must serve on Defendant a written settlement proposal, which 12 must include a specific demand amount, no later than September 17, 2026. 13 The defendant must respond to the plaintiff in writing with a specific offer 14 amount prior to the Meet and Confer discussion. The parties should not 15 file or otherwise copy the Court on these exchanges. Rather, the parties 16 must include their written settlement proposals in their respective 17 Settlement Conference Statements to the Court. 18 c. Counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person, via 19 videoconference, or by phone no later than September 24, 2026. 20 d. Each party must prepare a Settlement Conference Statement, which will 21 be served on opposing counsel and lodged with the Court no later than 22 October 1, 2026. The Statement must be lodged in .pdf format via email 23 to efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). The substance of the 24 Settlement Conference Statement must comply fully with Judge Goddard’s 25 Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules (located on the court website at 26
27 28 2 See supra n.1. 1 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/goddard/docs/Goddard%20Manda 2 tory%20Settlement%20Conference%20Rules.pdf). 3 e. Each party may also prepare an optional Confidential Settlement Letter 4 for the Court’s review only, to be lodged with the Court no later than 5 October 1, 2026. The Letter must be lodged in .pdf format via email to 6 efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov (not filed). Should a party choose to 7 prepare a Letter, the substance of the Settlement Conference Letter must 8 comply fully with Judge Goddard’s Mandatory Settlement Conference 9 Rules. 10 f. No later than October 1, 2026, each party must submit to the Court via 11 email (not filed) (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) the names, titles, 12 and email addresses of all attendees, as well as a cell phone number for 13 each party’s preferred point of contact. Court staff will then send out the 14 Zoom invitation to all attendees. 15 g. All participants shall display the same level of professionalism during the 16 Settlement Conference and be prepared to devote their full attention to the 17 Settlement Conference as if they were attending in person, i.e., cannot be 18 driving or in a car while speaking to the Court. Because Zoom may quickly 19 deplete the battery of a participant’s device, each participant should ensure 20 that their device is plugged in or that a charging cable is readily available 21 during the video conference. 22 h. Counsel are advised that although the Settlement Conference will take 23 place on Zoom, all participants shall appear and conduct themselves as if 24 it is proceeding in a courtroom, i.e., all participants must dress in 25 appropriate courtroom attire. 26 i. All parties are ordered to read and to fully comply with the Chambers 27 Rules and Mandatory Settlement Conference Rules of Magistrate 28 Judge Allison H. Goddard. 1 10. Counsel shall file their Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law and take 2 any other action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) by October 22, 2026. 3 11. Counsel shall comply with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. 4 Civ. P. 26(a)(3) by October 22, 2026. Failure to comply with these disclosure 5 requirements could result in evidence preclusion or other sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. 6 P. 37. 7 12. Counsel shall meet and take the action required by Local Rule 16.1(f)(4) by 8 October 29, 2026. At this meeting, counsel shall discuss and attempt to enter into 9 stipulations and agreements resulting in simplification of the triable issues. Counsel shall 10 exchange copies and/or display all exhibits other than those to be used for impeachment. 11 The exhibits shall be prepared in accordance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4)(c). Counsel shall 12 note any objections they have to any other parties’ Pretrial Disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. 13 P. 26(a)(3). Counsel shall cooperate in the preparation of the proposed pretrial conference 14 order. 15 13. Counsel for plaintiff will be responsible for preparing the pretrial order and 16 arranging the meetings of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16.1(f). By 17 November 5, 2026, plaintiff’s counsel must provide opposing counsel with the proposed 18 pretrial order for review and approval. Opposing counsel must communicate promptly 19 with plaintiff’s attorney concerning any objections to form or content of the pretrial order, 20 and both parties shall attempt promptly to resolve their differences, if any, concerning the 21 order. 22 14. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order, including objections to any 23 other parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures shall be prepared, served and 24 lodged with the assigned district judge by November 12, 2026, and shall be in the form 25 prescribed in and comply with Local Rule 16.1(f)(6). 26 15. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable 27 Janis L. Sammartino on November 19, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. 28 16. The parties must review the chambers’ rules for the assigned magistrate judge. 1 17. A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held 2 || within 30 days of verdict in the case. 3 18. The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified except for good cause 4 || shown. 5 19. Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to any pending motion 6 ||shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without leave of a district court judge. 7 || No reply memorandum shall exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district court judge. 8 || Briefs and memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length shall have a table of contents 9 || and a table of authorities cited. 10 20. Plaintiff’s counsel shall serve a copy of this order on all parties that enter this 11 || case hereafter. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: October 9, 2025 14 VWioerw +H. Hoviolars 15 Honorable Allison H. Goddard 6 United States Magistrate Judge
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28